flinux essentially had the architecture of WSL1, while CoLinux was more like WSL2 with a Linux kernel side-loaded.
Cygwin was technically the correct approach: native POSIX binaries on Windows rather than hacking in some foreign Linux plumbing. Since it was merely a lightweight DLL to link to (or a bunch of them), it also kept the cruft low without messing with ring 0.
However, it lacked the convenience of a CLI package manager back then, and I remember being hooked on CoLinux when I had to work on Windows.
scooprtoday at 10:19 AM
So, is it like colinux[0], but for pre-NT windows? Neat!
Back when I was still using windows (probably XP era), I used to run colinux, it was kind of amazing, setting up something like LAMP stack on the linux side was a lot easier and then using windows editors for editing made for quite nice local dev env, I think! Could even try some of the X11 servers on windows and use a linux desktop on top of windows.
When I noticed I kept inching towards more and more unixy enviornment on the windows, I eventually switched to macOS.
Apart from the obvious hack-value, I can't quite imagine even pretend use-case, with some 486 era machine, you would be limited by memory quite quickly!
Modern linux kernel running cooperatively inside the Windows 9x kernel, sick!
Borg3today at 12:00 PM
Hmm I wonder how stable it is.. It cannot render correctly Window control buttons (Minimize, Maximize, Close). If it fails on such basic task, I wonder where it crashes...
thrownaway561today at 12:27 PM
Everytime I see something like this, I'm like, how in the hell did they learn and then figure this out? Congrats on this!!!! I will definitely have to play with this for some of that sweet nostalga.
ilkkaotoday at 10:22 AM
Little late but would this have actually allowed running early Linux under Windows when Windows 95 came out in the 90s? I remember only dual booting being available at that time.
keyletoday at 11:04 AM
I thought this was about running windows 9x within linux. Is there such thing without virtualisation?
ErroneousBoshtoday at 10:04 AM
If I can get this to work (haven't tried yet) it directly solves a problem I have right now this week right here in 2026, 30 years after Windows 95 was even a thing.
Yes, I have weird problems. I get to look after some very weird shit.
vrganjtoday at 10:08 AM
Okay what is it with WSL naming, this always confuses me. Shouldn't it be Linux subsystem for Windows?
globular-toasttoday at 12:00 PM
Does this mean it runs on Linux or runs on Windows. I can never tell with this MS "subsystem" naming.
defrosttoday at 10:17 AM
I am going to run this in Windows 95 on a Sun PC card under Solaris 7.
from the same commenter who effused
jesus fucking christ this is an abomination of epic proportions that has no right to exist in a just universe and I love it so much
varispeedtoday at 11:08 AM
This could prompt me to finally assemble the Pentium desktop I have in storage in parts.
aa-jvtoday at 10:49 AM
Oddly enough, I could kind of use this right now. I have some software which used SCSI (Adaptec WNASPI32.dll) calls to administer a device over the SCSI bus .. would this Subsystem be usable for that, or does it still require I build a WNASP32.dll shim to do translation?
raverbashingtoday at 10:57 AM
That's cool
I mean it's like trying to balance a cybetruck into 4 skateboards and flunging it over a hill cool